In the last two postings, this writer addressed the issue of
how collaborative an atmosphere should a leader pursue in the running of an
organization or any collective arrangement – such as a social group or
family. When high school students were asked,
this writer found that they were strongly disposed to more federated options of
decision-making as opposed to the rule of the one, the rule of the few, or
individualistic options.[1]
But is this the case among members of
such arrangements as businesses, schools, church communities, or the like? By federated, the cited article refers to
collaborative or shared decision-making.
This is accomplished by bringing more people into the process of deciding
what should be done, especially those who are affected by whatever decisions
are made.
There seem to be two social reasons
offered to counter such an approach.
One, the option is seen by some as a sign of weakness in the form of a
leader being indecisive. Two, such an
approach burdens those underlings who just want to be told what to do.
Individualism,
as expressed by the construct natural rights, tends to support the lone actor
who knows what he/she wants and goes about achieving it. Of course, and this brings up another argument
against shared decision-making, accountability is more directed when it is
applied to a sole actor. And there seems
to be, in the age of natural rights, the romantic image of the brave individual
against the forces of “evil” in the form of inefficiency and incompetence.
But an
assumption is being made; that is, an organization is either one that promotes
and practices shared decision-making or it isn’t. A couple of postings ago, the lecturer,
Michael A. Roberto,[2]
was cited. His reference to the leadership
of Rudy Giuliani was described.
The record of this former New York
mayor indicated that his take-charge approach seemed to be successful under
conditions of extreme challenge, but not so much under conditions that were
more stable. This seems to indicate that
the nature of the challenges an organization is confronting seems to be a
factor. When conditions demand quick
responses, then take-charge might be favorable, but counterproductive in times
when the collective is not facing extreme problems.
So, this tends to beg the
question: can leadership be
adjustable? Can it take on a “take-charge”
approach when quick decisions are demanded and be more collaborative during
more normal times? Can the same leader
adjust to these different demands or is leadership so reliant on personality
traits and dispositions that the same person cannot be both, changing as the situations
at hand changes?
A further angle to these questions
is: do situations that approach or are
extreme necessarily preclude any shared decision-making strategies? The position here is that the more federated
posture is preferred for a host of reasons – many described and explained in
this blog.
As such, the answer to this last
question is that yes, one can be reluctant to give up on collaborative modes of
operation. But one should understand that
the needs individual conditions might present to the leader or leadership might
call for the leader to be more assertive.
Early on in this blog, this writer,
in his promotion of federation theory, pointed out that he was not proposing a
pie in the sky nirvana. He has tried to
make the distinction between theories-in-use and espoused theories;[3] that
ideals, while needing to be compromised at times, still function to guide
leaders and followers. And, finally,
federation theory provides a set of ideals that in the long run provides
beneficial consequences for all involved.
The next posting will look more
specifically at what collaborative leadership means as leadership interacts
with those who follow. In addition, followers
can and should take on more leadership qualities under the auspices of
federated relationships.
[1] Robert Gutierrez, “The Predisposition of High School
Students to Engage in Collective Strategies of Problem-Solving,” Theory and Research in Social Education 33,
no. 3 (2005): 404-428.
[2] Michael A. Roberto, Transformational Leadership: How
Leaders Change Teams, Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA: The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011).
[3] Chris Argyris and Donald A. Shon,
“Evaluating Theories in Action,” in The
Planning of Change, Fourth Edition, eds. Warren G. Bennis, Kenneth D.
Benne, and Robert Chin (New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985), 108-117.
No comments:
Post a Comment